find_tests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it says nothing about side effects, resource usage, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent has no clues about what happens when the tool is invoked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (single sentence) but at the expense of all informativeness. It is under-specified, not efficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not convey what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how it complements other tools. The agent would be blind to its functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the parameters. 'path' and 'limit' are undefined in context; the description does not clarify what path is being searched (e.g., file system path, test suite path) or what the limit applies to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a tautology: 'Kali Agent MCP tool: find_tests' merely restates the name without specifying what the tool does (e.g., locate test files, list test cases, discover test frameworks). It does not distinguish it from related siblings like 'run_tests' or 'find_files'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_tests, find_files, lint_project). There is no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.